What is the relation between the unified theory and the triple theory?
Vortrag
Abstract
In his introduction to “On What Matters,” Scheffler notes that the idea of progress is central to Derek Parfit’s philosophy. Parfit consistently endeavoured to achieve unity between philosophical traditions and reconcile them. This enterprise, let us call it Parfit’s project, plays a significant role in all his books. In “Reasons and Persons,” he introduces us to the Unified Theory, which attempts to combine the strengths of consequentialism and common sense morality. By abandoning some of their talking points and integrating some ideas from the other side, these theories gradually approach each other to unite ultimately. In “On What Matters,” Parfit presents the Triple Theory to reconcile rule consequentialism, contractualism, and Kantianism, claiming that (the best versions of each tradition) are climbing the same mountain from different sides. Since the second book’s publication, research has primarily focused on the Triple Theory, while the Unified Theory has received very little attention. When people comment on it, it is, in fact, often equated with the Triple Theory, claiming that both aim at the same thing. In my presentation, I want to examine the relationship between these two theories more closely and argue that there are good reasons to reject their equation. In Parfit’s project, they serve different functions: with the Triple Theory, Parfit primarily seeks to establish competing approaches on a shared foundation and identify them as deontically equivalent. In contrast, with the Unified Theory, he aims for deontic adequacy. So, both theories represent two different steps in his project. Finally, I would like to make some remarks about his overall idea of moral progress.
